HathawayField Notes
← All concepts

Jobs to Be Done

3notes

AI: a technology in search of a job

AI, from a consumer point of view, is still a technology searching for a job to be done. I’m not in any way a bear on AI. I’m not dismissive of it. But what they call product-market fit hasn’t happened. It has niches, and they’re not consumers. There are individual users and buyers of the technology, and they might be using it on a day-to-day basis, but that’s very early days. It doesn’t have that resonance yet. It needs to be packaged in certain ways.

So how do we get there? I don’t think it’s ChatGPT. That’s like saying TCP/IP. That’s like saying Intel 8088 — something technical. It’s also an interface that’s notoriously low bandwidth. You have to converse in language, in complex language, prompts, as if we’re dealing with a keyboard, the old days of the command line. And I think Apple’s initial attempt, which failed, was to make things like emojis, and image editing, and trivial things. Those aren’t apps either; those are features. The app is not a technology, it’s not a feature. It’s something that packages all those things, and does it in a way that’s easy to discover and to evolve.

asymco.com
AI: a technology in search of a job

An Office Hours question asked by Bob V., July 31, 2026. Q: I’ve seen mostly positive reviews from the press about the AI features in Apple’s public betas. How well do you think Apple i…

Vision Pro and glasses: the job is seeing, not capturing

When it comes to wearables on the face, the job is going to be optics. When the Watch came out, they said: by the way, it’s a timepiece. It took a lot of cues from timepieces, a very old category. So if you study eyewear, you have to study deeply what people are using it for. It isn’t natural at all to use eyewear to take pictures. What’s natural is to see better. The whole objective of eyewear is to give you clarity, not to collect information and process it in the cloud. So you pivot away from what the early versions of the products are. You listen to what the early entrants did and you get confused, because they all had the wrong jobs, or the wrong approach, or the wrong processes, or their own priorities. And you assume that what they did is what Apple’s going to do. They’re going to come at it a whole different way. Of course it can see — but to the extent that it can see, it helps you see. I really think they’re going to position it as a great optical device, as they did with the Watch, saying it’s a great chronograph.

asymco.com
Vision Pro and glasses: the job is seeing, not capturing

Why Apple's approach to face wearables should be read through the job eyewear already does, the way the Watch was positioned as a chronograph.

July 2026

The job was never driving

4 min read

I bought my first Tesla in 2020, a Model X, and there’s been one in the driveway ever since. A month ago we picked up a new Model Y, this one on Tesla’s newer hardware platform, with a fresh set of cameras and sensors built specifically for full self-driving. I expected an upgrade. What I got was a different category of product.

The 2020 X came with whatever Tesla was calling Full Self-Driving that year, and it was fine: it held a lane, kept a following distance, took some of the tedium out of a long highway stretch. But it was still very much a car you drove. Every update was incremental, a smoother lane change here, a cleaner stop there. You could feel Tesla iterating on the same idea, cruise control with better manners.

A month with the new Y and I can tell that idea is finished. This isn’t a better version of the old system; it’s a different mode of transportation. I just finished a 260-mile round trip, and the first leg went door to door without a single intervention: neighborhood streets, open highway, then the specific misery of Atlanta rush-hour traffic on a weekday morning. The car handled all of it well, not just safely. It doesn’t clamp to the speed limit like a piece of compliance software. It handles like a genuinely good driver: a few miles over the limit, the way real traffic actually moves, closing a gap to merge onto the highway, easing off early to let someone else in. That’s the detail that convinced me. Software following rules is easy to spot. This drove like someone who’d made the trip before.

You don’t have to like Elon Musk to notice that his company built the best transportation product in its category. A vehicle is just the tool we’ve used to do that job. The job-to-be-done is transportation: getting someone from one place to another. Driving has just been the method we were stuck using to do it, and most people who drive would hand off that method the moment they trusted an alternative.

That reframing is already built into the car. Sit in the new Y and look at the cabin: take away the wheel and the pedals and the two front seats are nearly identical. Tesla pulled the instrument cluster from in front of the driver in favor of one shared screen in the center, and angled that screen straight ahead instead of toward the driver’s seat. Ride in the passenger seat and you have exactly the same access to the car as whoever is “driving.” A company doesn’t spend engineering effort making both front seats interchangeable unless it’s planning for a car where neither one needs to be the driver’s seat. Tesla built this cabin for that car years before the software could justify the decision, for a future where it won’t matter which seat you climb into: you sit down, and the car takes you where you’re going. The real job here is transportation, not driving. The software just caught up.

That doesn’t mean Tesla let the driving experience go slack while chasing the bigger goal. Take the wheel back on a good stretch of road and the Y is still a great car to drive: quick, planted, all that instant torque available the moment you ask for it. Optimizing hard for the job of transportation hasn’t cost them the job of being fun to drive when you want to.

None of this means the technology is finished. I wouldn’t trust it on every edge case yet, and neither does Tesla — a person still has to be ready to take over. But the trust being built here comes from a specific mechanism, not a marketing claim. The car has to share the road with human drivers for years before anyone lets it replace them, and the only way to earn that is to drive in a way other humans can read: a little assertive, a little imperfect, familiar enough that nobody nearby has to guess what it’ll do next. A system built to optimize the rulebook creates friction with everyone driving around it. This one is optimized to fit in, and fitting in is the harder engineering problem.

I’m not the only one who landed here recently. DHH picked up his own new Model Y around the same time and wrote about the same shift, calling FSD a luxurious experience, like being driven by the Queen’s own chauffeur, and saying it drives better than almost any human who’s ever driven him. I agree. When two people separately land on the same read of the same product, the two of us probably aren’t imagining it.

Every new technology climbs the same curve: a small group willing to hand over control before it’s fully proven, then everyone else once that proof exists. FSD is still on the early part of that curve. It takes a real comfort with risk to let a car drive you through Atlanta traffic with your hands in your lap. But trust climbs that curve one uneventful trip at a time, and Tesla already built the car for what’s waiting on the other side of it.